Posted by:
Wally Prince
(
)
Date: September 17, 2019 02:42AM
is intended to produce an argument based on the odd notion that the SAHM's "services" are all primarily for the benefit of her husband.
In that way of looking at things, they aren't "her" kids that she's caring for. They're "his" kids. She's doing it for "his" kids. She's not living in the house because she wants to be there. It's because she has to be there to provide the services for him and his kids. She doesn't cook for herself. Use family transportation for herself. Do any laundry for herself or for her own benefit, except to the limited extent that it makes it possible to provide services to him and to "his" kids.
Of course, logically, you could flip that distorted point of view 180 degrees. He doesn't spend money on "his" kids. He spends it on "her" kids. Given the time value of money, he should be credited as having loaned money to some lady and "her" kids, so that she doesn't have to pay someone else to take care of "her" kids or find some other place where she and "her" kids can live rent-free.
Both points of view are idiotic.
Statistically, control over household disposable income has been more in the purview of the SAHM than the WSF (wage-slave father).
https://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2?r=US&IR=TOf course there are freak-show marriages where the husband is a total control freak and jerk.
There are also freak-show marriages where the husband is a doormat who gets a tiny personal spending allowance returned to him after household budgetary needs, determined solely by the wife, are deducted.
Hopefully, the majority of marriages are partnerships, based on cooperation, mature evaluations of each family member's needs and so on. Fortunately, although I've seen a good number of freak-show marriages that tilt wildly to one side or other of the dominant-submissive spectrum, the majority I've observed are reasonable people working as partners to provide for the needs of THEIR family.
Certainly, I agree that no sole wage earner husband should expect or have sole control over spending decisions and the enormous contributions of a SAHM to a family's welfare give her the right to equal status in decision making concerning the allocation of family resources.
But I don't think that spurious "studies" such as the one cited here really serve any purpose other than to inflame arguments. The study has so many holes in it that it would be better used as a strainer for pasta. 10~20 minutes a day balancing a checkbook doesn't equate to being a professional bookkeeper or accountant (or the wages that such professionals would earn). Driving yourself and/or your kids somewhere does not equate to being a professional chauffeur (anymore than hubby's driving himself to the place where the money comes from to pay for stuff would equate to him being a professional chauffeur).
The "hybrid salary" cited in this "study" includes equating the day-to-day work of a SAHM with the following (among others): academic adviser, CEO, groundskeeper, laundry manager, staff nurse, and day care center teacher. Of course there is no qualitative or reasonable quantitative analysis whatsoever. So why not add in surgeon, actor, athlete, swimming coach, pest extermination technician, health adviser, mechanic, stylist, wardrobe consultant, plumber, price researcher, party caterer, event planner, mattress tester, audio-visual technician, building inspector, IT specialist, veterinarian etc, etc, etc?
At some point in any given week or month some task or activity will in some sense be similar to something that someone engaged in one of those occupations does.
There are plenty of good arguments to support the concern you mention. This study is not one of them.
I agree with your concern. I just hate ridiculous "studies" like this.